Quote:
Originally posted by Bfair
JEA states under 6.06(c):
6.06(c) A batter is out for illegal action when he interferes with the catcher's fielding or throwing by
stepping out of the batter's box or making any other movement that hinders the catcher's play at home
base. Furthermore, in discussing 6.06(c) JEA continues: Professional Interpretation: This rule encompasses any and all play by the catcher in which he is trying to retire a runner. It includes attempts to pick runners off base and attempts to prevent stolen bases.Professional Interpretation: This rule encompasses any and all play by the catcher in which he is trying to retire a runner. It includes attempts to pick runners off base and attempts to prevent stolen bases. The batter is called out and the runner/s are returned in all cases with one exception: If a runner on third is attempting to score with less than two outs when the batter interferes, the offensive team is given the more severe penalty ruling the runner out instead of the batter. With two outs, the other penalty retiring the batter is enforced and, of course, no run is allowed. Thisis considered a more severe penalty with two outs since the batter is deprived of finishing his at-bat the next inning. The action by the batter which causes interference does not have to be intentional. The batter is obligated to avoid making any movement which obstructs, impedes, or hinders the catcher's play in any way. A swing which carries the batter over home plate and subsequently complicates the catcher's play or attempted play should be ruled interference. Contact between the batter and catcher does not necessarily have to occur for interference to be ruled. Merely blocking the catcher's vision to second base may very possibly be interference. A batter shall not be charged with interference for standing still and consequently complicating the catcher's play
at any base. If he is within the confines of the batter's box, he must make some "other movement" that is deemed
a hindrance to the catcher's play before interference is ruled.
The action by the batter which causes interference does not have to be intentional. The batter is obligated to avoid
making any movement which obstructs, impedes, or hinders the catcher's play in any way. A swing which carries
the batter over home plate and subsequently complicates the catcher's play or attempted play should be ruled interference. Contact between the batter and catcher does not necessarily have to occur for interference to be ruled.
Merely blocking the catcher's vision to second base may very possibly be interference. A batter shall not be charged with interference for standing still and consequently complicating the catcher's play at any base. If he is within the confines of the batter's box, he must make some "other movement" that is deemed a hindrance to the catcher's play before interference is ruled.
This JEA quote would support that batter interference occurs only when a catcher made or attempted to make a play. [snip]
Steve
Member
EWS
|
Steve:
First, this is the last post written by you and signed as a member of the Anti-Warren faction (EWS) to which I will respond.
Second, let me warn you once again about impugning both my honor and honesty. You write:
What I find interesting is those taking the point of view (in the situated [sic] original shown) that the batter should be called out for batter interference went to JEA for reference, used other data from JEA, but failed to highlight this [sic] data. Could it be that this obvious part of JEA was merely overlooked? It appears to me that it may be more important to some to show only that which is important to winning a debate versus that which may be of pertinence to the discussion.
Since I am the only one who quoted the JEA in this thread, your comment is clearly directed to me. That is not by any means the first time you have accused me of mismangaging my sources. I intend for that to stop. Now.
If you wonder why I'm angry, the success of the BRD as a tool for working umpires as well as teachers, instructors, and historians, depends upon the ethos I have created amongst those who use that book. If Carl Childress does not report honestly, why should we believe anything he reports?
You certainly over-value your importance on my radar screen if you think I would jeopardize the reputation I have built over 20 years simply to score a point against some obscure umpire from North Texas.
The very reason the PBUC deals with me is that they can depend upon me to report the exact truth of their interpretation, regardless of my personal opinion.
You will not again without further action from me assert or insinuate that I lie or mismanage my sources to win a debate.
Finally, to the issue at hand:
You quote extensive information from the JEA, all of which deals with
batter-interference on the swing. All of that is irrelevant to the issue of the
backswing.
As I reported, I quoted the only passage from JEA that deals with the backswing. Here's a precĂ*s of that material:
When the batter's backswing contacts the mitt before the catcher has secured the ball, it's weak interference: Dead ball, runners remain, strike on the batter.
Ironically, the portion I selectively (according to you) quoted supports the
position about which no one disagrees.
Jim Porter reviewed your material. Most umpires with whom I correspond believe Jim is one of the leading experts on batter interference. He has worked many months on sifting through every bit of the rules language, official interpretations, and authoritative opinion available. He agrees that your quotation does accurately reflect the current interpretations about batter interference
everywhere but on the backswing.
You went to all that trouble to post material about which no controversy exists. In so doing, you've possibly exposed yourself in a way you did not expect.
Because you have heretofore not quoted from the JEA, it appears you in all innocence may have acquired one of those illegal, electronic PDF copies of Jim Evans' work. I know the authorized, bound version is no longer available, and nobody I know seems willing to part with his. I offer that simply as a heads-up. If I'm wrong, there's no harm done. If I'm right, you should get rid of it: The recent increase in the value of the JEA is certain to attract Jim's attention.